thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 13, 2022 15:02:18 GMT
Firstly, these aren't things (logistics and communications) that can be 'worked out' on a sand table or on training exercises, because in addition to putting those things into practice on a while driving around on a notional battlefield, they omit the most important thing - your opponent. In this case, the UKR armed forces, which are just as well equipped (though not as numerous) as the RUS forces - and fighting on their own turf. They're using unsecured communications - cell phones. That doesn't really speak to months of planning for an invasion to me.
I think Russia did this in Chechnya didn't they? Granted that was well before this conflict, but they did do it (twice - first time didn't go so well).
I don't think it would've been a given seeing the problems they've had so far.
"They're using unsecured communications - cell phones. That doesn't really speak to months of planning for an invasion to me." Or.....what is another reason this might be happening? "I think Russia did this in Chechnya didn't they? Granted that was well before this conflict, but they did do it (twice - first time didn't go so well)." RUS forces were able to move around Chechnya more or less freely because why, exactly? Furthermore, what is the main difference between the campaign in Chechnya and the one in UKR? "I don't think it would've been a given seeing the problems they've had so far." What would be a great way to deprive UKR military of their C2 and facilitate the takeover of the country? If you don't intend the takeover, why take this action? You haven't done this kind of stuff for real, demos. And neither have many of the people you cite. In short, it is theoretical to you (as it was to many of the RUS forces), and not practical. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2022 15:25:06 GMT
"They're using unsecured communications - cell phones. That doesn't really speak to months of planning for an invasion to me." Or.....what is another reason this might be happening? Is there another reason why it's been an issue since the beginning of this conflict? After months of purportedly planning this invasion? This isn't something that happened months later.
So, it has happened in the last 75 years. They've been able to move into Ukraine pretty freely too. Not without opposition, and there was opposition in Chechnya too. That's why the first Chechen war ended in a truce. Russia has also used similar tactics in both conflicts - bombing civilian populations, etc. Having looked at what's happened so far, why do you think it would be a given? And as to why they took this action, I have said I think they hoped to collapse Zelensky's government or cause a coup so that it could be replaced by a pro-Russian government (that's one of the things Russia wants, rather than governing Ukraine directly - see Belarus, which would actually like to rejoin Russia).
Guess what, the people cited in the OP and by others haven't done this for real either. So if that's your measure, what they're offering up is theoretical too. So, we're all discussing theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 16:28:13 GMT
There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated. Period. Full stop. The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly. And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it. I too often can make little sense of your posts. The irony of rabbit is that he often makes more sense when he's being ironic than when he's stating his actual opinion... which is to say not that much. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 13, 2022 17:00:41 GMT
I hope that by now we can all agree on at least one thing: Putin's got to go. There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated. Period. Full stop. The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly. And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it. LOL. Are you angry with yourself for blindly following Bush. So why do you continue to repeat the same mistake |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Sept 13, 2022 17:03:20 GMT
There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated. Period. Full stop. The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly. And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it. LOL. Are you angry with yourself for blindly following Bush. So why do you continue to repeat the same mistake Can you please stop pretending this is strictly a Republican offense. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 13, 2022 17:04:35 GMT
There's one thing the forces for good understand, and that's going into another sovereign country in attempt to overthrow that country's government with violence or covert operations cannot be tolerated. Period. Full stop. The f***ing nerve of these foreign governments, honestly. And if that means further impoverishing the regular people of the Good Countries, so be it. I too often can make little sense of your posts. Interesting. Why do you think that is? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 13, 2022 17:06:20 GMT
Are you angry with yourself for blindly following Bush. I don't think it's anger at myself anymore. I've expressed my regret over it multiple times on this forum. So why do you continue to repeat the same mistake How so? Which foreign intervention have I supported since that time, roughly 20 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 13, 2022 17:12:17 GMT
LOL. Are you angry with yourself for blindly following Bush. So why do you continue to repeat the same mistake Can you please stop pretending this is strictly a Republican offense. GWB and Cheney were in charge. Do you actually think that would have happened if Gore won the election |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 13, 2022 17:15:44 GMT
Are you angry with yourself for blindly following Bush. I don't think it's anger at myself anymore. I've expressed my regret over it multiple times on this forum. So why do you continue to repeat the same mistake How so? Which foreign intervention have I supported since that time, roughly 20 years ago? Supporting the republicans no matter what they say or do. It’s like an abused wife that does not want to leave her abuser. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 13, 2022 17:39:51 GMT
I don't think it's anger at myself anymore. I've expressed my regret over it multiple times on this forum. How so? Which foreign intervention have I supported since that time, roughly 20 years ago? Supporting the republicans no matter what they say or do. It’s like an abused wife that does not want to leave her abuser. Lol |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 13, 2022 18:30:24 GMT
"They're using unsecured communications - cell phones. That doesn't really speak to months of planning for an invasion to me." Or.....what is another reason this might be happening? Is there another reason why it's been an issue since the beginning of this conflict? After months of purportedly planning this invasion? This isn't something that happened months later.
So, it has happened in the last 75 years. They've been able to move into Ukraine pretty freely too. Not without opposition, and there was opposition in Chechnya too. That's why the first Chechen war ended in a truce. Russia has also used similar tactics in both conflicts - bombing civilian populations, etc. Having looked at what's happened so far, why do you think it would be a given? And as to why they took this action, I have said I think they hoped to collapse Zelensky's government or cause a coup so that it could be replaced by a pro-Russian government (that's one of the things Russia wants, rather than governing Ukraine directly - see Belarus, which would actually like to rejoin Russia).
Guess what, the people cited in the OP and by others haven't done this for real either. So if that's your measure, what they're offering up is theoretical too. So, we're all discussing theories.
You are certainly stubborn when trying to defend positions you take when you are not cognizant of their underlying complexities, demos. It's almost as if your ego is involved. "Is there another reason why it's been an issue since the beginning of this conflict? After months of purportedly planning this invasion? This isn't something that happened months later." A few. Now, what are they? I am testing your knowledge here. "So, it has happened in the last 75 years. They've been able to move into Ukraine pretty freely too. Not without opposition, and there was opposition in Chechnya too. That's why the first Chechen war ended in a truce. Russia has also used similar tactics in both conflicts - bombing civilian populations, etc." How often in the last 75 years have they fought against an opponent with the same capabilities? Take all the time you need. "Having looked at what's happened so far, why do you think it would be a given? And as to why they took this action, I have said I think they hoped to collapse Zelensky's government or cause a coup so that it could be replaced by a pro-Russian government (that's one of the things Russia wants, rather than governing Ukraine directly - see Belarus, which would actually like to rejoin Russia)." Because there was no reason to have another operation to do what they did in the Kyiv sector. If they had been able to decapitate the Zelinsky government, rolling up the rest of the country was a given. This is undoubtedly why it was attempted. That operation failed, and the troops used to conduct it were redeployed. "Guess what, the people cited in the OP and by others haven't done this for real either. So if that's your measure, what they're offering up is theoretical too. So, we're all discussing theories." Nope. You and those you cite are discussing theocraticals. Those of us with military experience are discussing practicals. When you have shot, moved and communicated under fire, get back to me. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2022 18:58:46 GMT
A few. Now, what are they? I am testing your knowledge here. Well, I'd say poor planning is still at the top of the list. They only had 60,000 of the Azart handsets. They had no radios: "We have no communication. We have no walkie-talkies. Nothing." ( Source) Some more:
"Evidence suggests that some of the roots of the Russian communication lapses lie in mismanaged development and procurement processes for things like tactical military radios, undertrained and under-deployed specialists, and the challenges of operating on foreign soil, where the enemy controls not only cellular networks but also wired communications that frequently serve as a reliable backup channel." ( Source)
And then they themselves (not the Ukrainians) took out the towers that the Azart handsets relied on. So, poor planning and poor training.
If you were preparing for this invasion months in advance, seems like these would be some important issues that could've and should've been sorted out, because they weren't unknown problems that arose during the course of the invasion. Or no?
Seems like we keep shifting the goalposts here. First, it was it's never been done in 75 years. Actually, it has been. Now, its when was the last time they fought someone with the same capabilities. Want to shift this any further?
You just keep saying the same thing over and over. We've seen the complete mess this invasion has been. And you yourself have suggested that Russia is going up against an opponent with equal capabilities, so why would it be a given that taking Kyiv would allow them to just roll up the rest of the country? There would've been no opposition, none? Would've completely collapsed?
I kinda think there still would've been opposition that would've been fed arms, ammunition, training, etc. And given that, their rolling up of the rest of the country wouldn't be a given. See the First Chechen War for example which resulted in Chechnya's de facto independence. (Lot of this sounds kinda familiar - doesn't it) Hardly undoubtedly, unless you have some special insight into Putin's mind. You cite your practical experience, but it's not really translating into any useful information here. |
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Sept 13, 2022 19:28:38 GMT
A few. Now, what are they? I am testing your knowledge here. Well, I'd say poor planning is still at the top of the list. They only had 60,000 of the Azart handsets. They had no radios: "We have no communication. We have no walkie-talkies. Nothing." ( Source) Some more:
"Evidence suggests that some of the roots of the Russian communication lapses lie in mismanaged development and procurement processes for things like tactical military radios, undertrained and under-deployed specialists, and the challenges of operating on foreign soil, where the enemy controls not only cellular networks but also wired communications that frequently serve as a reliable backup channel." ( Source)
And then they themselves (not the Ukrainians) took out the towers that the Azart handsets relied on. So, poor planning and poor training.
If you were preparing for this invasion months in advance, seems like these would be some important issues that could've and should've been sorted out, because they weren't unknown problems that arose during the course of the invasion. Or no?
Seems like we keep shifting the goalposts here. First, it was it's never been done in 75 years. Actually, it has been. Now, its when was the last time they fought someone with the same capabilities. Want to shift this any further?
You just keep saying the same thing over and over. We've seen the complete mess this invasion has been. And you yourself have suggested that Russia is going up against an opponent with equal capabilities, so why would it be a given that taking Kyiv would allow them to just roll up the rest of the country? There would've been no opposition, none? Would've completely collapsed?
I kinda think there still would've been opposition that would've been fed arms, ammunition, training, etc. And given that, their rolling up of the rest of the country wouldn't be a given. See the First Chechen War for example which resulted in Chechnya's de facto independence. (Lot of this sounds kinda familiar - doesn't it) Hardly undoubtedly, unless you have some special insight into Putin's mind. You cite your practical experience, but it's not really translating into any useful information here. Russian military leadership was completely and totally incompetent and had been for a long time. Lack of radios is not evidence Putin and his circle hadn't been planning on invading, it was evidence the military was incompetent. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 13, 2022 19:41:51 GMT
Pretty sure that a stalemate is going to occur along the banks of the Dnieper River and one of its tributaries that cuts across to the Russian border at some point. Basically a natural geographic boundary that cuts off southeastern and some of eastern Ukraine. There will be gains and losses on both sides but eventually borders will be fortified along more defensible terrain and neither side will be able to advance and hold territory. Hard to effectively supply an army across a river when the bridges keep getting blown up and there is isn't effective air dominance to create and secure an air base where supplies could be flown into. Bridges get blown up by skilled, determined saboteurs, by combat engineers, by air attack or by powerful standoff weapons. Once the Ukranians are over the relevant rivers, the Russians won't be reliably able to do any of those. I'd suggest Ukraine will conduct a full reclamation of their territory with a very blunt "for us (stay) against us (leave)" option presented to the former 'rebel' territory population. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2022 20:01:51 GMT
Russian military leadership was completely and totally incompetent and had been for a long time. Lack of radios is not evidence Putin and his circle hadn't been planning on invading, it was evidence the military was incompetent. Incompetence certainly can't be ruled out based on their history. But it's not just lack of radios. It's pretty much everything about this invasion. Nothing suggests - imo - any serious planning for any kind prolonged operation. Seems more fly by the seat of your pants because you ran out of other options.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2022 20:02:47 GMT
I'd suggest Ukraine will conduct a full reclamation of their territory with a very blunt "for us (stay) against us (leave)" option presented to the former 'rebel' territory population. If they don't do that, they'll just have the same problem they've had since independence. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Sept 13, 2022 20:16:29 GMT
I too often can make little sense of your posts. Interesting. Why do you think that is? My guess is that you have plenty in the way of anger, but little in the way of solutions. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Sept 14, 2022 5:15:15 GMT
A few. Now, what are they? I am testing your knowledge here. Well, I'd say poor planning is still at the top of the list. They only had 60,000 of the Azart handsets. They had no radios: "We have no communication. We have no walkie-talkies. Nothing." ( Source) Some more:
"Evidence suggests that some of the roots of the Russian communication lapses lie in mismanaged development and procurement processes for things like tactical military radios, undertrained and under-deployed specialists, and the challenges of operating on foreign soil, where the enemy controls not only cellular networks but also wired communications that frequently serve as a reliable backup channel." ( Source)
And then they themselves (not the Ukrainians) took out the towers that the Azart handsets relied on. So, poor planning and poor training.
If you were preparing for this invasion months in advance, seems like these would be some important issues that could've and should've been sorted out, because they weren't unknown problems that arose during the course of the invasion. Or no?
Seems like we keep shifting the goalposts here. First, it was it's never been done in 75 years. Actually, it has been. Now, its when was the last time they fought someone with the same capabilities. Want to shift this any further?
You just keep saying the same thing over and over. We've seen the complete mess this invasion has been. And you yourself have suggested that Russia is going up against an opponent with equal capabilities, so why would it be a given that taking Kyiv would allow them to just roll up the rest of the country? There would've been no opposition, none? Would've completely collapsed?
I kinda think there still would've been opposition that would've been fed arms, ammunition, training, etc. And given that, their rolling up of the rest of the country wouldn't be a given. See the First Chechen War for example which resulted in Chechnya's de facto independence. (Lot of this sounds kinda familiar - doesn't it) Hardly undoubtedly, unless you have some special insight into Putin's mind. You cite your practical experience, but it's not really translating into any useful information here. You are using a lot of words to tell those of us who have gone out and done this kind of thing for real that you aren't really qualified to have this conversation. I have asked you a few pointed questions to try to get a gauge on what you actually know, and you aren't impressing me. You have demonstrated no knowledge how military operations actually work, and how learning to coordinate things at the staff level and above are the result of YEARS of training and experience. Any look at the RUS army will tell you what it is failing at, and why. Take a look and get back to me. There was no 'shifting of the goalposts' because the Chechen wars and campaigns like Operation Bagration and the Vistula-Oder Operation were VERY different things. Not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same sport, and if you had a better base of knowledge, you would know this. I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself or seek clarification. Instead, you doubled down. I say the same things over and over because - 1. They bear repeating because they (obviously) aren't sinking in 2. You aren't getting them (willfully?) I have no insight into Putin's mind. The attempt at decapitating the UKR government made the intent obvious (unless you are hugely invested in believing what is obvious is not true). I cite practical experience because in this case it is relevant in discrediting your sources. Until you or your sources have worked at the S/G/J 1-9 levels, you are merely amateurs. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 14, 2022 6:41:55 GMT
Pretty sure that a stalemate is going to occur along the banks of the Dnieper River and one of its tributaries that cuts across to the Russian border at some point. Basically a natural geographic boundary that cuts off southeastern and some of eastern Ukraine. There will be gains and losses on both sides but eventually borders will be fortified along more defensible terrain and neither side will be able to advance and hold territory. Hard to effectively supply an army across a river when the bridges keep getting blown up and there is isn't effective air dominance to create and secure an air base where supplies could be flown into. Bridges get blown up by skilled, determined saboteurs, by combat engineers, by air attack or by powerful standoff weapons. Once the Ukranians are over the relevant rivers, the Russians won't be reliably able to do any of those. I'd suggest Ukraine will conduct a full reclamation of their territory with a very blunt "for us (stay) against us (leave)" option presented to the former 'rebel' territory population. Ah and the Ukrainians also have to sustain supply lines over those very same rivers against an opponent that can take out bridges or crossings as easily as they could. |
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Sept 14, 2022 7:25:48 GMT
Bridges get blown up by skilled, determined saboteurs, by combat engineers, by air attack or by powerful standoff weapons. Once the Ukranians are over the relevant rivers, the Russians won't be reliably able to do any of those. I'd suggest Ukraine will conduct a full reclamation of their territory with a very blunt "for us (stay) against us (leave)" option presented to the former 'rebel' territory population. Ah and the Ukrainians also have to sustain supply lines over those very same rivers against an opponent that can take out bridges or crossings as easily as they could. Russian military is decimated and incompetent. They don't control the skies because they can't afford to lose planes and helicopters. They have exhausted their smarter bombs. They have lots of old Soviet artillery ammo, but they need people to actually occupy space. Ukraine appears to be able to conduct surgical strikes against Russian command and control and supply lines using HIMARs and Western intel. Russia appears to be quietly packing up in Crimea, not the best signal. Limey has it right. Ukraine will move to reclaim everything from Russia given Russian weakness and incompetence. |
|
